Judgment :- V.P. Mohan Kumar, J. The petitioner herein seeks to enforce an alleged right acquired by uninterrupted usage for over forty years in a public temple to perform a "vazhipadu" (roughly translated as divine offering to the diety in a temple by a devotee). Though the prayer made in the Writ Petition does not disclose as to which temple the petitioner desires to enforce the right, but by wading through the scanty pleadings one can make out that it relates to Ravipuram Krishna Temple situate in Ernakulam, a place of worship of Hindus of all denomination, where all Hindus have a right for worship and offer vazhipadu, irrespective of caste, colour or creed. This is a temple managed and administered by the first respondent herein, a state within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner describes itself to be a registered society, consisting of members who share their view and admitted by the society as its members. The "vazhipadu" is proposed to be offered during the Navarathri season, believed by all Hindus to be auspicious nine days devoted for worship of Hindu Goddesses Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswathi. The petitioner seeks permission to use the "oottupura" (traditionally a place situate within the temple precincts earmarked for temple feasts) for its exclusive user. In short, the petitioner claims an exclusive right of occupation of the said premises, by virtue of a right acquired by user for over forty years. Before proceeding, it has to be stated that with respect to this claim, except the ipsi dixit of the petitioner, there is no material whatever placed before the court to substantiate such a claim. Ext. P2 produced in this behalf only shows that such a permission was granted during the previous year but it is not in dispute that by Ext. P3 this right stood revoked. As such, there is nothing on record to claim any right having acquired by use over 42 years. That apart, it is settled law that it is not possible for an individual or to a registered body to acquire any exclusive right for worship or performing poojas in a public temple. When once the petitioner seeks permission from the first respondent, it is implied that any such use of the temple premises was only permissive and it would not enable the claimant to acquire any prescriptive right. When once the petitioner seeks permission from the first respondent, it is implied that any such use of the temple premises was only permissive and it would not enable the claimant to acquire any prescriptive right. There can be no dispute in this behalf. 3. But, however, since the first respondent was called upon to take notice and the second respondent got themselves impleaded to oppose the prayer, we propose to examine the case in more detail- We do not think that any of the prayers of the petitioner in the Writ Petition can be granted. The petitioner has made the following prayers: "(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to consider and grant sanction for the petitioner to conduct the Navarathri Festival as has been done for the last nearly half a century; (ii) to issue a direction that this festival being conducted as a vazhipadu and the respondent cannot stop it except for cogent reasons; (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing the respondent to dispose of Ext. P5 representation favourably forthwith as before with the traditional grant; and (iv) to issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case. The prayers suffer from the defect of inexactitude. One do not know with respect to which temple the prayer of the petitioner relates. It would be extremely difficult for the first respondent to countenance such prayers. The pleadings are insufficient to sustain the contentions. 4.Besides, we have no doubt in our mind that the petitioner has not suffered any legal injury at the hands of the first respondent by their declining any exclusive permission to them to enjoy a part of a temple premises exclusively to conduct a festival considered sacred and holy by all sections of Hindus. We have gone through the Writ Petition carefully and could not discover any legal right vesting in the petitioner to seek enforcement of which he has sought the assistance of this Court. Besides we find from Ext. We have gone through the Writ Petition carefully and could not discover any legal right vesting in the petitioner to seek enforcement of which he has sought the assistance of this Court. Besides we find from Ext. P-6 that the first respondent had, as early as on 21st September, 2001 issued orders declining permission to the petitioner, observing that the Navarathri Festival would be celebrated under the aegies of the Devaswom Board itself with the assistance of the second respondent, a body nominated or constituted by it to assist them. Ext. P6 also discloses that it does not intend to confer any exclusive right on anybody to conduct a festival common to all Hindus and celebrated by all Hindus. We notice that despite the receipt of the said order, the petitioner has not even chosen to challenge the same or sought to set aside the same. Obviously, for this reason also, no relief whatever, can be granted to the petitioner in such a situation, as long as Ext. P6 is in force. 5. The second respondent has got themselves impleaded and after impleadment has filed a detailed counter affidavit. We consider it unnecessary to dwell on the allegations or contentions of the second respondent at this stage as at the outset itself we make it clear that as the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case to be examined by this Court, it is unnecessary to go into the questions raised by them. 6. We note with concern that it is now a fashion and rather a prevalent common social malady of uncontrolled growth of several self styled organisations springing up with the alleged object of taking care of temples. They profess enrolling of members from general public to organise festivals and offer vazhipadu etc. on important Hindu festival days. It is not as of right that any member of the public can claim membership in such organisations. If the membership is refused, that person may not have any right to participate in the function organised by them. It is as if they are claiming a largesse from the authorities to conduct the temple festivals. We notice that such organisations take birth with the knowledge of the first respondent. Thereafter they raise substantial funds by collection from the public. It is as if they are claiming a largesse from the authorities to conduct the temple festivals. We notice that such organisations take birth with the knowledge of the first respondent. Thereafter they raise substantial funds by collection from the public. Later, in certain cases, we have seen how such entries claim right to perform poojas and organise temple festivals exclusively for themselves in the temple. This certainly prejudices the right of the public to whom the temple is dedicated. If their object is to perform vazhipadu alone as claimed in this petition, they do not need the aid of the court to offer the same nor the aid of the first respondent to do so. It is common knowledge that God does not require any middleman like the first respondent to act as a go between. Mostly these "fly by night" societies are formed with other motive. This is demonstrated from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent wherein it is stated as under: "The Devaswom Officer, Ravipuram Devaswom asked the petitioner sangham to produce the accounts of the sangham for scrutiny. and audit by Devaswom Officer officials. But the petitioner sangham refused to produce the accounts". The reluctance on the part of the petitioner to disclose their accounts for the previous year lends colour to the suspicion alleged that the ostensible purpose for the setting up of the society is something other than what they profess and that the organisation might have come into existence for self aggrandizement. 7. We feel that this is a case where this court should not interfere under Art.226 of the Constitution. It would be ideal if one dissuades himself of the misplaced impression that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is a panacea for every imaginary grievance. It is the common impression that an allegation of violation of principles of natural justice or characterisation of an act of an authority as arbitrary would let open the gate of the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is also the erroneous impression that every type of grievances could be redressed seeking shelter under Art.226 of the Constitution. This is totally a misconceived notion. The person complaining of the grievance should have suffered a legal injury at the hands of the State or an instrumentality of the State or other authorities. It is also the erroneous impression that every type of grievances could be redressed seeking shelter under Art.226 of the Constitution. This is totally a misconceived notion. The person complaining of the grievance should have suffered a legal injury at the hands of the State or an instrumentality of the State or other authorities. The mere plea that an act is arbitrary, without disclosing the right of the petitioner thus infringed is not a passport to seek recourse to this court invoking the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. The said plea is so frequently voiced that it may fast loose the status of the sacred privilege it guaranteed. We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Petition. The respondents are entitled to the costs, but taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner claims to put forward a right to perform vazhipadu in the temple, we refrain from doing so.